(WARNING: Non-Korean, completely partisan post. Feel perfectly free to ignore it) I’ll let you all ponder this and debate.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
Nice move, Kerry
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on February 3, 2007 at 2:32 am, filed under Asides. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
33 Comments
In a perfect world, no American senior statesman would be so chummy with a man who advocates executing homosexuals. BUt let’s be honest… it’s hardly the first time an American pol has gotten close to such an odious figure. ALbright in North Korea and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam come to mind.
Still, Kerry should have done his homework and refused to be seen within a mile of Khatami.
Remember the good ol’ days when the deluded thought Mohammad Khatami was a reformer and that Iran would liberalize under his leadership?
Perhaps Kerry’s quote is out of context, but I really don’t see how the “crisis of confidence in the Middle East” is due to Kyoto and African AIDS.
Our lily-livered responses to Iranian outrages (listed by Steve Shippert on smalldeadanimals) is shameful.
I predict that this will come back and bite Kerry on the ass — as it should. It’s one thing to know your enemy and, in the case of “allies” like Korea, to know your friends as if they were enemies, but this is obviously not what Kerry has in mind.
If it were any state other than Massachusetts, Jon Carry would be extremely vulnerable to a righteous veteran appearing in the primary — this time with a decent-looking salute instead of that soup-sandwich number of Kerry’s. “Sir, you are relieved of duty!” But alas, those saps in Mass will keep the Real Deal around.
When will we see the righteous outrage of the Neocon blogsphere concerning US dealings with Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, The Khmer Rouge, Pinochet or any number of despots, tyrants and human rights abusers that have been useful over the last century?
If you think the dreaded Neocons are happy about Saudi Arabia, think again. But tell us — what’s your suggestion about what the United States government should be doing, going forward, in respect of the Taliban, Khmers Rouge, and Pinochet? I rather approve of our Taliban policy. Should we call Ghostbusters on the other two? Or would you increase funding on time machine research? Seriously, we’re interested.
Right on B.C.!
When will the Massachusettsians throw out this clown? I know, I know, if Chappaquiddick Ted is still there then the answer is never.
Brendon Carr Said
I’m not suggesting an alternative. Merely pointing out the contingencies of realpolitik inasmuch that a government often has to deal with regimes that seem repulsive in order to advance their own interests, hence I gave nigh on half a dozen historical examples of this kind of behavior. I’m no stary-eyed idealist, far from it, but given the current kulturkampf, one almost has to resort to to such language to counter the verbosity and lack of thinking that comes from neo-con quarters (they hate our freedoms!). As for your final three sentences, I’ll not dignify your drivel with a response to that (oops!).
You see for Aaronm, like just about every other student I’ve encountered while studying international relations, “neocon” is a bogeyman used to categorize any sort of conservative they disagree with. It seems most know nothing of the history of the neoconservative movement; i.e. its emphasis on considerations of morality in foreign policy. Actually had a very liberal but intellectually honest professor smack down a smarmy twat during a discussion group yesterday who tried to assign blame for Iran-Contra on a “neocon cabal.” (Nice to see he’s taking Janeane Garafelo’s advice from Team America) The professor just said, “there weren’t neoconservatives in the early 1980’s. Those people were what some academics refer to as CONSERVATIVES.”
Smackdown, timemachine, ghostbusters; Corpy Carly and Brendon Carr, can we please couch this argument in something other than semantics, labels or whatever you would like to call it? I’m simply alluding to the absurdity of dressing up another form of self interest in shades of morality, as some are wont to do at the moment.
Corpy Carly has you busted, aaronm — the neo-conservative movement is predicated on application of morality to the exercise of American power. Their thesis: We have power, let’s use it to oppose evil and advance good. No more bargains with odious dictators. Stalin is not our buddy. Your grad-school diction indicates you’re a smart guy. Did you just miss this point in your readings?
As for the final three sentences of my riposte being “drivel”, you’re wrong: Since the Taliban, Khmer Rouge and Pinochet are all history, what is the purpose of the outrage for which you call? To ensure that never again do we get in bed with such monsters? (The jury is out on Pinochet, by the way.) I can’t speak for all of the Jewish neo-conservative cabal, but gosh, I’m pretty sure that’s a plank of their platform. So what’s your beef with them? You’re on the same page.
Do you mean like throwing the term ‘neocon’ around like you did?
There’s another issue I might point out. I have no problem with U.S. officials meeting with scumbags. I’d prefer not to, and I was hoping the end of the Cold War meant we wouldn’t have to anymore, but yes, it seems that realpolitik still does on ocassion require it. Such is life. But that’s NOT what was happening here. This was a sitting U.S. senator bashing U.S. foreign policy while sitting next to the former president of Iran. Even if I were to grant that a) I thought Khatami was a pretty decent guy and b) it’s a shame the U.S. didn’t work harder to improve relations with Iran while he was in power, it was still a very questionable thing to do, regardless of how popular it probably was with the Davos crowd. As Hotair pointed out:
Now, of course, this is all partisan politics, and I’m sure we can find example of Republican lawmakers going abroad to bash the foreign policy perogatives of sitting Democrat presidents, but it still doesn’t make it cool.
The “flip-flopper” meme was a charitable misdiagnosis. The more disturbing truth is packed away in the same box where he keeps his letters from Madame Binh.
The fact that we came within 3% of having this man as Chief Executive severely shook my agnosticism.
John Kerry…. Here’s a gold-digger with no pride in his country. The boy is a whore. He would sell the crack of his Mothers a$$ for the right price, to any buyer. I thank the creator daily that he was not elected.
Brendon again…
OK, the catch-all neo-con was used in the context of warbloggers or whatever you want to call them. My original post was a comment on the righteous outrage of that section of the commentariat. I was merely noting that in their attempt to frame issues morally, they miss the point of power and its role in the international system; ergo that it makes deals with the devil sometimes necessary.
My beef is twofold. Firstly, Kerry is suggesting a diplomatic track with Iran. I see nothing wrong with this, predicated on what I wrote above. Those writers, deluded into believing they are moral will paint Kerry as an appeaser, a lover of fascism and all other nasty things. This hardly advances the debate or produces policy options of any utility. Further, it feeds into the second part of my gripe, the belief in some quarters that the only way of dealing with nefarious states like Iran is militarily.
Finally, as for Corpy Carly having me banged to rights and your brief summary of neo-conservatism, neither of you have mentioned its roots in Strauss’ philosophy and the role of myths and noble lies (hello uranium purchases in Niger). You see now, I have done my readings (have you?). Yes, I’m currently a postgrad IR student (so what), so lets dispense with the ad-hominems please.
It’s possible to advocate necessary diplomacy with deplorable people without making non-verbal use of one’s tongue.
Then your thinking is really quite muddled. On the one hand, you criticize past US foreign policy choices to accommodate useful tyrants, then you turn around and say that US power makes such deals necessary. This smacks of Bush Derangement Syndrome — damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I regret that Corpy Carly and I failed to exposit to your satisfaction on the origin of this ideology we may or may not support. But should we have to? I don’t have to explain how TCP/IP was developed in order to approve of the Internet now, do I?
Here’s an ad hominem: By 34, you should be long done with graduate school. Get a job, Peter Pan.
I think picking at someone’s age is out of line.
Me too. But that’s why it’s satisfying.
I’ve got a job, Brenda, you still chasing ambulances?
That’s the spirit, Pan!
But you’re off target. I’ve told you people time and again — there’s no percentage in chasing ambulances in Korea, because the legal system is too stingy with damages. Go with something more on target: Bug eyes, or receding hairline — something like that.
PS, if you could get it through your rigid cranium, Brendon, that I am not in fact criticising past practises but in fact seeking to justify such behaviour, we might get through this impasse. Why the hostility, mate, did someone blow a heap of sand up your cooch today?
OK, you run like a girl and sit down to pee. Fuck this shit, you win the game of playground hero. Enjoy, champ.
I call for a show of hands on this one: Am I the only one who failed to note this elegant position in aaronm’s comment?
If you support bargaining with the devil, and think us neo-conservatives stupid for failing to see things your way (by the way, this is not at all obvious in your original comment at #5 and the follow-up at #11), why the disappointment over our dunderheadedness?
Looks quite Kerryesque from this rigid cranium.
Cool, you see dead people! Show of hands, how old are you, six?
How exactly is Jon Carry schmoozing with Khatami an example of the real-politik you (and I) believe is sometimes neccessary? If he were negotiating a withdrawal of the Quds pigs who are killing my brothers in arms while claiming diplomatic immunity, I’d say right on. As it is he’s just being the sh*tbag he’s always been.
Wow, that was some bad grammar. Let me try again. If he were negotiating a withdrawal of the Quds pigs who claim diplomatic immunity after killing my brothers in arms, I’d say right on…etc.
B.C., I agree!
Sure are a lot of angry young boys on this blog…..
As amusing as some of the taunting is, might I suggest we play nice down here?
Marmot, I think the amount of prozac needed to stablize your audience might not be cost effective.
“Those writers, deluded into believing they are moral will paint Kerry as an appeaser, a lover of fascism and all other nasty things.”
Ridiculous. The criticism of Kerry has to do with the dubiousness of the idea of making a deal with the Iranians. Go to the table with the mullahs? What does the US stand to gain, besides a useless piece of a**wipe, much like any agreement they might make with the fat dwarf in North Korea? As a true neo-con (meaning new conservative, having been a leftist when I was young and stupid) I’m not against some backchannel dealing, but this was certainly nothing remotely backchannel, in front of a crowd while bowing down and kissing the ass of an enemy. And trashing his own country at the same time. What kind of a deal would this goofball wring out in talks with Iran?